War on Terror is Wrong - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-04-2005, 10:22 PM   #166
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 01:50 PM
BBC NEWS: US FACES IRAQ 'GUERRILLA WAR'

WASHINGTON POST: In Iraq's Guerrilla War, Army Intelligence Faces a Tough Job ...

YAHOO NEWS: US troops face acute dangers in Iraq guerrilla war

CBS News | General: Guerrilla Warfare In Iraq | May 30, 2003

USATODAY.com - US troops in Iraq facing guerrilla warfare

Online NewsHour: Guerrilla War?


and I only used the reputable news sources with guerrilla in the title.
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 05:21 AM   #167
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 08:50 AM

Hello fellow FYMers. I don’t want to rain on the parade, but I am noticing a general lack of mutual respect and civility in this thread. Can we please discuss this issue without calling each other liars or resorting to retaliatory insults? Painting all of one’s opponents with a wide brush, be it war mongers or terrorist sympathizers, is not only unhelpful but very counterproductive. Many people have very passionate feelings on both sides of this debate but let’s keep it just that...a debate. Not a mud-slinging match.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.
The Management
__________________

__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 12:21 PM   #168
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:50 AM

Well, I just refuse to legitimize a terrorist organization be calling them anything other than they truly are. Same as I refuse legitimize their actions by basing them in any way on Israel.

But to stay on point... Your reason for calling these terrorists guerillas is to make a link between Vietnam and Iraq.

The Iraq invasion began in March of 2003. In Vietnam, the army arrived (Replacing military advisors) in July of 1965. That's the date when the Vietnam War is generally regarded as having started.

There's been 2000 American casualties in Iraq to date.

Over the same time period, there were approximately 20,000 US casualties in Vietnam.

I'd have to say Iraq is nothing like Vietnam.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-05-2005, 01:41 PM   #169
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 01:50 PM
So having 2000 deaths is fine because that's nowhere near the 20,000 we lost in Vietnam.

Only 2,000 deaths. Only 2,000 weeping mothers, 2,000 horrified fathers. MILLIONS of brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, classmates that have to deal with these deaths. Only 2,000 deaths. Just 2,000.


Even 1 death is too many because this war SHOULD NOT have been started. America is not the world's police. Iraq posed no threat the United States, so United States should not have (almost) unilaterally gone into Iraq to "liberate" them. This war had nothing to do with terrorism and NOW the war has to do with terrorism because the terrorists WENT there AFTER we attacked. Al-Qaeda's number two man on that tape a couple days ago said that terrorist attacks will continue to happen in England unless they pull out their troops.

Reasons for going to war:
1) WMD's? The CIA told President Bush that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Iraq had WMDs and today none have been found.

2) Fighting terrorism? This was never given as a reason to intially fight the war, and in addition more terrorism has occured as a result of this war.

3) Saddam was brutal? This was never given as a reason to go to war.

1 death is too many. 2,000 deaths is frightening.
And the fighting isn't letting up, in the last three days there's been 21 marines that have died. Every month is more deadly than the next. We shouldn't have gone to war and even after we did, the planning was an abomination.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 04:52 PM   #170
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
So having 2000 deaths is fine because that's nowhere near the 20,000 we lost in Vietnam.

Only 2,000 deaths. Only 2,000 weeping mothers, 2,000 horrified fathers. MILLIONS of brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, classmates that have to deal with these deaths. Only 2,000 deaths. Just 2,000.


Even 1 death is too many because this war SHOULD NOT have been started. America is not the world's police. Iraq posed no threat the United States, so United States should not have (almost) unilaterally gone into Iraq to "liberate" them. This war had nothing to do with terrorism and NOW the war has to do with terrorism because the terrorists WENT there AFTER we attacked. Al-Qaeda's number two man on that tape a couple days ago said that terrorist attacks will continue to happen in England unless they pull out their troops.

Reasons for going to war:
1) WMD's? The CIA told President Bush that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Iraq had WMDs and today none have been found.

2) Fighting terrorism? This was never given as a reason to intially fight the war, and in addition more terrorism has occured as a result of this war.

3) Saddam was brutal? This was never given as a reason to go to war.

1 death is too many. 2,000 deaths is frightening.
And the fighting isn't letting up, in the last three days there's been 21 marines that have died. Every month is more deadly than the next. We shouldn't have gone to war and even after we did, the planning was an abomination.

Only???? Who the MotherFUCK said only!?!?!?!? Why can't you stay on point? You argued Iraq was like Vietnam. It's not if for no other reason than Vietnam had 10 times the casualties. Debate that.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 04:59 PM   #171
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:50 PM
The distribution of towns is all wrong, there is no conventional enemy to defeat and there is no rival superpowers backing a standing army. The opponent is not trying to unify the country rather obliterate centralised government, the popular support for their goals is low.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 06:06 PM   #172
Refugee
 
MadelynIris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Craggy Island
Posts: 1,504
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Quote:
Yes but it can't be denied that Israel's occupation of the Islamic holy land is part of the ideology of hatred towards the west.
Israel captures Mecca! News at 11!
__________________
MadelynIris is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 06:36 PM   #173
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock



Only???? Who the MotherFUCK said only!?!?!?!? Why can't you stay on point? You argued Iraq was like Vietnam. It's not if for no other reason than Vietnam had 10 times the casualties. Debate that.
Wow....way to only read the first 2 paragraphs of what I wrote and not respond to the last 5 (probably because you can't dispute it).

Please let's keep this clean. A party built on family values shouldn't be using language like that .
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 07:34 PM   #174
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
So having 2000 deaths is fine because that's nowhere near the 20,000 we lost in Vietnam.

Only 2,000 deaths. Only 2,000 weeping mothers, 2,000 horrified fathers. MILLIONS of brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, classmates that have to deal with these deaths. Only 2,000 deaths. Just 2,000.


Even 1 death is too many because this war SHOULD NOT have been started. America is not the world's police. Iraq posed no threat the United States, so United States should not have (almost) unilaterally gone into Iraq to "liberate" them. This war had nothing to do with terrorism and NOW the war has to do with terrorism because the terrorists WENT there AFTER we attacked. Al-Qaeda's number two man on that tape a couple days ago said that terrorist attacks will continue to happen in England unless they pull out their troops.

Reasons for going to war:
1) WMD's? The CIA told President Bush that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Iraq had WMDs and today none have been found.

2) Fighting terrorism? This was never given as a reason to intially fight the war, and in addition more terrorism has occured as a result of this war.

3) Saddam was brutal? This was never given as a reason to go to war.

1 death is too many. 2,000 deaths is frightening.
And the fighting isn't letting up, in the last three days there's been 21 marines that have died. Every month is more deadly than the next. We shouldn't have gone to war and even after we did, the planning was an abomination.
Reasons for going to war:

1) the United Nations weapons inspectors found that SADDAM had failed to verifiably disarm of thousands of stocks of WMD. This put Saddam in violation of the 1991 Gulf War Ceace fire agreement as well as UN resolutions 678, 687, and 1441. These resolutions were passed in order to protect the security of the region and the rest of the world.

2) Fighting terrorism was not the central case for going into Iraq, but it was indeed a supporting case. Outside of Iraq, especially in the United States, less terrorism has occured.

3) Saddam was brutal and this brutality is indicative of what his future behavior would be like, whether it was invading and attack(unprovoked) four different countries and putting the planets energy supply at risk, murdering people in his own country, or using WMD more times than any other leader in history on the battlefield.

Every month in Iraq is NOT more deadly than the previous month. Most months in 2005 have less US casualties than the same months in 2004.

Iraq today has voted in its first free election, is close to writing a constitution and will have new elections in December. The new Iraqi military is active in military operations around the country. Most liberals in August of 2004 claimed these things would never happen by this point if at all.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 11:08 PM   #175
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 01:50 PM
I simply can't understand why we went to war.

Sure all those things you said about Saddam might be true, but I don't get why the United States would go to WAR with them. It's ridiculous. They proved no threat to the US. I can't understand why we would literally blow up the country and then rebuild it. War is supposed to be a last resort type of thing. When the United States is militarily threatened by another country, we go to war with them.

Do you think that the United States had NO CHOICE but to go to war with Iraq? Was our democracy in danger? Would American lives have been in danger unless we took military action? Was war a LAST RESORT?

I really don't think the answer is yes to any of those questions.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 11:17 PM   #176
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:50 AM
^Position, it all comes down to position.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-07-2005, 11:32 PM   #177
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


Wow....way to only read the first 2 paragraphs of what I wrote and not respond to the last 5 (probably because you can't dispute it).

Please let's keep this clean. A party built on family values shouldn't be using language like that .
You know, you still haven't addressed the point. As to your points I "skipped", what points? The same ones you've been making that I've been tearing apart for the past week?

But I don't care anymore. By accusing me of trivializing the deaths of our soldiers you're actually cheapening them yourself. Those soldiers didn't die for you to use as a weapon against those who supoort what they died believing in. And I won't have any part in that. You also trivialize the deaths of Vietnam soldiers and I think they've gone through more than enough at the hands of people like you.

And lastly, that you would try and turn this into partisan politics is beyond pathetic. It's frighteningly stupid.

You're beneath my notice. Goodbye.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-07-2005, 11:54 PM   #178
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,645
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock




But I don't care anymore. By accusing me of trivializing the deaths of our soldiers you're actually cheapening them yourself. Those soldiers didn't die for you to use as a weapon against those who supoort what they died believing in. And I won't have any part in that. You also trivialize the deaths of Vietnam soldiers and I think they've gone through more than enough at the hands of people like you.

And lastly, that you would try and turn this into partisan politics is beyond pathetic. It's frighteningly stupid.

You're beneath my notice. Goodbye.
You've sunken to a new low. Both sides have always trivialized the deaths of soldiers, it's something politicians do very well. But you've done nothing but accuse people of being smug, arrogant, and now stupid. Get over yourself, no one is beneath your notice.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 08-08-2005, 12:53 AM   #179
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


You've sunken to a new low. Both sides have always trivialized the deaths of soldiers, it's something politicians do very well. But you've done nothing but accuse people of being smug, arrogant, and now stupid. Get over yourself, no one is beneath your notice.
Look who's making the sweeping generalizations now. I have never and would never trivialize the deaths of those who gave their lives for my country. And the fact that the poster even intimated that I did is beyond offensive to me; and thus beneath me. His opinions weren't beneath me. But that insult was.

As to smug and arrogant and stupid... First, never accused anyone of arrogance. You're exaggerating.... AGAIN. As to stupid; arguing partisan politics in the face of the greatest threat to the free world since the Nazi's is stupid. I've said over and over that a person can believe whatever they want to believe; and I'll support that even if I don't agree with it. But I've had enough of debating him when he's really arguing ideology; rather than the issue. And as to smug, should I post it again? My first response to you, your first response to me:

Snowlock: "What's your alternative though? By your definition, if there's no one leader, no one country, no one land, who are you supposed to be diplomatic with?

At least this way they know that if they mess with civilized people, they going to pay for it dearly. The message got through to Quadafi and it's getting through to others as well."


BVS: "That's a laugh...yeah we've seen a big backing down tell that to London."

Now please; cut it out.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-08-2005, 01:59 AM   #180
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


You know, you still haven't addressed the point. As to your points I "skipped", what points? The same ones you've been making that I've been tearing apart for the past week?

But I don't care anymore. By accusing me of trivializing the deaths of our soldiers you're actually cheapening them yourself. Those soldiers didn't die for you to use as a weapon against those who supoort what they died believing in. And I won't have any part in that. You also trivialize the deaths of Vietnam soldiers and I think they've gone through more than enough at the hands of people like you.

And lastly, that you would try and turn this into partisan politics is beyond pathetic. It's frighteningly stupid.

You're beneath my notice. Goodbye.
1) I don't understand how I've "cheapened" the deaths of the soldiers.
2) I'm not using the soldiers' death as ammo for myself.
3) I'm not guilty of anything that you haven't done yourself. I find it very immature to put yourself up on a pedestal and accuse others of things which you yourself are also guilty of. Sure I made a partisan-ish comment. But you aren't so innocent yourself. Read what you wrote just now. "they've gone through more than enough at the hands of people like you". I find it pathetic that you insult me and tell me that I don't mourn the sacrifice of soldiers and then say that you are somehow on a higher ground than me.
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com